• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NATO Says Sabotage Behind Destruction Of Natural Gas Pipelines

They are fighting in Ukraine and it is not more accessible. Additionally, if the plan is to blame it on the US, other countries, it makes much more sense to blow up a part that is accessible to many more people, countries.

Putin blowing up the pipeline for multiple reasons that do fit his personality and how he operates, supports his plans makes more sense. Is it possible that another, radical group did it? Yes. Is it likely that it is US or NATO allies? No.

The pipelines in Ukraine are more accessible for *everyone*. You are aware that these pipelines are incredibly accessible with a variety of platforms for Russia, right? They could literally blow them up right at the Ukrainian/Russian/Belorussian borders, right? As in, literally not a damned thing anyone could do about it, right? So if they were trying to take away those options, they could do that, blame the Ukes and people move on. That's not what happened though.

Another radical group decided to take a boat out to the middle of the Baltic Sea, send some divers with explosives down, plant explosives all over the place, and then get away? As if this area of the ocean isn't *heavily* monitored by NATO/US specifically because of the proximity to Kaliningrad.

Whoever did this did it with the US support, backing, and at a minimum looking the other way.
 
The pipelines in Ukraine are more accessible for *everyone*. You are aware that these pipelines are incredibly accessible with a variety of platforms for Russia, right? They could literally blow them up right at the Ukrainian/Russian/Belorussian borders, right? As in, literally not a damned thing anyone could do about it, right? So if they were trying to take away those options, they could do that, blame the Ukes and people move on. That's not what happened though.

Another radical group decided to take a boat out to the middle of the Baltic Sea, send some divers with explosives down, plant explosives all over the place, and then get away? As if this area of the ocean isn't *heavily* monitored by NATO/US specifically because of the proximity to Kaliningrad.

Whoever did this did it with the US support, backing, and at a minimum looking the other way.
No, those would not be more accessible at this moment for those who aren't Russia or Ukraine. Are you unaware of what is going on in Ukraine right now?

It actually makes much more sense that Russia would just do that, take a boat out there (we know they have subs) and blow it up. Especially since it is in close proximity to Kaliningrad, which is a Russian city.

You don't have evidence to support the claim that someone did it with US support or backing or knowledge at all. The opposite is most likely true, that it was done with Putin backing, if not orders from him to do it.
 
The "too much work" is making your theories have any sort of cohesiveness.
Well that's silly and wrong. One can easily look around and read the reasoning I share with most of the planet. You are just chest beating and bleating.
 
No, those would not be more accessible at this moment for those who aren't Russia or Ukraine. Are you unaware of what is going on in Ukraine right now?

It actually makes much more sense that Russia would just do that, take a boat out there (we know they have subs) and blow it up. Especially since it is in close proximity to Kaliningrad, which is a Russian city.

You don't have evidence to support the claim that someone did it with US support or backing or knowledge at all. The opposite is most likely true, that it was done with Putin backing, if not orders from him to do it.
It's been shown there were Russian ships in the area of the damage just before the explosions.
 
No, those would not be more accessible at this moment for those who aren't Russia or Ukraine. Are you unaware of what is going on in Ukraine right now?

Oh, there's a war in Ukraine? I didn't realize. You also realize that you have open engagement, with aggressor forces on both sides all around these pipelines with long range weapons right? There is nothing in the world that would stop Ukraine from firing a few HIMARs rounds or Russia from launching a few cruise missiles and severing the pipelines very easily, just blow up the compression stations and those pipelines are down for six months to a year best case. That accomplishes the same goal, if not more. So why complicate matters by doing it underwater?

It actually makes much more sense that Russia would just do that, take a boat out there (we know they have subs) and blow it up. Especially since it is in close proximity to Kaliningrad, which is a Russian city.

You mean one of the most actively surveilled areas of the world? They just took a boat out, dropped in a few divers, no one noticed, and again.... for no good reason? Gotcha, that makes sense. Who has better surveillance of that area? The US or the Russians? Which is more likely able to put a Virginia there, drop off a couple of kids with a couple of charges and then slink away undetected?

You don't have evidence to support the claim that someone did it with US support or backing or knowledge at all. The opposite is most likely true, that it was done with Putin backing, if not orders from him to do it.

You realize covert action, by their design, have no evidence, right? I only have common sense. Cui bono? You keep moving around the extremities of the question to specifically ignore the root question. Why. How does it serve Russia's interest to blow up the pipeline? Then ask the inverse, how does it serve the western interest to blow up the pipeline? One is far, far more obvious than the other.

Well that's silly and wrong. One can easily look around and read the reasoning I share with most of the planet. You are just chest beating and bleating.

The gymnastics you are doing and framing as reasoning is mind numbingly stupid.
 
Oh, there's a war in Ukraine? I didn't realize. You also realize that you have open engagement, with aggressor forces on both sides all around these pipelines with long range weapons right? There is nothing in the world that would stop Ukraine from firing a few HIMARs rounds or Russia from launching a few cruise missiles and severing the pipelines very easily, just blow up the compression stations and those pipelines are down for six months to a year best case. That accomplishes the same goal, if not more. So why complicate matters by doing it underwater?



You mean one of the most actively surveilled areas of the world? They just took a boat out, dropped in a few divers, no one noticed, and again.... for no good reason? Gotcha, that makes sense. Who has better surveillance of that area? The US or the Russians? Which is more likely able to put a Virginia there, drop off a couple of kids with a couple of charges and then slink away undetected?



You realize covert action, by their design, have no evidence, right? I only have common sense. Cui bono? You keep moving around the extremities of the question to specifically ignore the root question. Why. How does it serve Russia's interest to blow up the pipeline? Then ask the inverse, how does it serve the western interest to blow up the pipeline? One is far, far more obvious than the other.



The gymnastics you are doing and framing as reasoning is mind numbingly stupid.
You have no evidence for any of this. And there is evidence for it being Putin, Russians. Hell they have evidence of Russian ships in the area, it was off the coast of a Russian city, and it benefits Putin.
 
You have no evidence for any of this. And there is evidence for it being Putin, Russians. Hell they have evidence of Russian ships in the area, it was off the coast of a Russian city, and it benefits Putin.

Do you know how many US warships and air assets were, and are, in the area? lol.
 
Do you know how many US warships and air assets were, and are, in the area? lol.
In that exact area at that time or just the Baltic Sea? And how does that compare to Russian ships?
 
In that exact area at that time or just the Baltic Sea? And how does that compare to Russian ships?

Who knows. Both sides are making claims and I wouldn't believe either side for a damned thing. Apparently there is a number of US warships rolling around the Baltic including an amphibious assault ship. It doesn't really matter because whoever did it will never be proven.

I will say this, if Putin wanted to blow up the pipeline, why not send the explosive charge *down* the pipe rather than through the water?
 
Who knows. Both sides are making claims and I wouldn't believe either side for a damned thing. Apparently there is a number of US warships rolling around the Baltic including an amphibious assault ship. It doesn't really matter because whoever did it will never be proven.

I will say this, if Putin wanted to blow up the pipeline, why not send the explosive charge *down* the pipe rather than through the water?
Amphibious assault ships deliver Marines places. They don't blow things up.

But no, they wouldn't be likely to send it down the pipe if they were trying to blame others for doing it.
 
Amphibious assault ships deliver Marines places. They don't blow things up.

But no, they wouldn't be likely to send it down the pipe if they were trying to blame others for doing it.

An amphib assault ship can do damn near anything it wants. Sure, they can deploy marines, but they can also deploy SEALs, USVs, drones, etc. All the tools you would need for a covert op to take out that pipeline are easily within the realm of that vessels wheelhouse. Shit, a destroyer, frigate, or LCS could handle it just fine. My point is that the US had plenty of capability of doing it and more motive of doing it. The entire argument of Russian motivate needing to "frame" someone for an act of sabotage doesn't jive. For what purpose? For domestic propaganda? Don't need it. For international propaganda? Worthless. Economic value? A negative. Diplomatic value? A negative.

Until someone can explain the hard tangible benefit of Putin ordering the destruction of one of their newest and most valuable pieces of infrastructure that is even remotely comparable to the value in denying Germany an option for energy I just can't see it.
 
An amphib assault ship can do damn near anything it wants. Sure, they can deploy marines, but they can also deploy SEALs, USVs, drones, etc. All the tools you would need for a covert op to take out that pipeline are easily within the realm of that vessels wheelhouse. Shit, a destroyer, frigate, or LCS could handle it just fine. My point is that the US had plenty of capability of doing it and more motive of doing it. The entire argument of Russian motivate needing to "frame" someone for an act of sabotage doesn't jive. For what purpose? For domestic propaganda? Don't need it. For international propaganda? Worthless. Economic value? A negative. Diplomatic value? A negative.

Until someone can explain the hard tangible benefit of Putin ordering the destruction of one of their newest and most valuable pieces of infrastructure that is even remotely comparable to the value in denying Germany an option for energy I just can't see it.
There's no evidence they did any of that or that it was anywhere close to that Russian city.
 
There's no evidence they did any of that or that it was anywhere close to that Russian city.

That's my entire point. There is no evidence that the US, Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, or Russians did it.

I can think of a lot of reasons why the Poles, US, Lithuanians or Ukrainians would want to do it. The US is the most capable of doing it and makes us the most likely suspect logically.

So where this goes to is that there is no evidence of who did it from any side, but logic would seem to dictate it wasn't Russia as any theoretical advantage to them is rather tenuous compared to the advantage on the other side.
 
That's my entire point. There is no evidence that the US, Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, or Russians did it.

I can think of a lot of reasons why the Poles, US, Lithuanians or Ukrainians would want to do it. The US is the most capable of doing it and makes us the most likely suspect logically.

So where this goes to is that there is no evidence of who did it from any side, but logic would seem to dictate it wasn't Russia as any theoretical advantage to them is rather tenuous compared to the advantage on the other side.
Except there is evidence, including several levels of typical actions the Russians take, especially for such construction, like adding explosives they can detonate remotely.

 
Except there is evidence, including several levels of typical actions the Russians take, especially for such construction, like adding explosives they can detonate remotely.


What evidence? Show me the pictures of Russian combat divers going down there. Show me photos of explosive charge debris. The idea that you think this serves as evidence is shockingly biased.

What sounds a lot more like evidence is multiple western officials comments. Like Biden's comments on Nord before the war, Blinken's after the explosion, multiple military leaders and the Polish fellas comments. Again, motive.
 
What evidence? Show me the pictures of Russian combat divers going down there. Show me photos of explosive charge debris. The idea that you think this serves as evidence is shockingly biased.

What sounds a lot more like evidence is multiple western officials comments. Like Biden's comments on Nord before the war, Blinken's after the explosion, multiple military leaders and the Polish fellas comments. Again, motive.
They are currently investigating. President Biden commented on it in February, right before they shut it down for the invasion Russia committed. Some Polish guy made a stupid speculative comment on Twitter without evidence. I'm not seeing any of Blinken's comments as suspicious, but I do see a lot of rightwing and Russian sources trying to make that argument, convincing gullible people that they are "suspicious".
 
Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, says that the destruction of the pipeline is a "tremendous opportunity". He then goes on to say how the US has replaced Russia as the major supplier of natural gas to Europe. What an amazing coincidence.


 
The US has blown up the Nord Stream 1 & 2 gas pipelines which supply huge amounts of natural gas to Europe from Russia, according to Poland's former defense minister:





If true, this constitutes a massive escalation by the United States in hostilities against Russia, the world's largest nuclear power.

I can't think of any faster way to bring about a nuclear war, than to attack key infrastructure of a major nuclear power.
I think old fool Biden knows that he has one foot in the grave, and doesn't mind taking the rest of us with him.


Which is the reason I doubt the report.
 
The US has blown up the Nord Stream 1 & 2 gas pipelines which supply huge amounts of natural gas to Europe from Russia, according to Poland's former defense minister:





If true, this constitutes a massive escalation by the United States in hostilities against Russia, the world's largest nuclear power.

I can't think of any faster way to bring about a nuclear war, than to attack key infrastructure of a major nuclear power.
I think old fool Biden knows that he has one foot in the grave, and doesn't mind taking the rest of us with him.


First you outright declare the United States blew up the pipeline, then attribute it to a nobody. Then close by directly stating Biden did it.

Can you make up your mind?

There is one big fat question to the assertion and that is motive. "Qui bono"?, who benefits? The US has nothing to gain out of it, the greatest impact is on Canada which just signed a ten year deal for LNG.


And for some reason everyone ignores the possibility of anti-Putin forces as bad guys.....
 
Conducting a covert operatioon and leaving an overt clue sort of defeats the purpose.

When you have the US intelligence and defense budgets, they are doing all sorts of crazy stuff, all around the world, all the time, and no one hears about it.


In movies
 
There is one big fat question to the assertion and that is motive. "Qui bono"?, who benefits? The US has nothing to gain out of it, the greatest impact is on Canada which just signed a ten year deal for LNG.
Blinken said, in his joint presser with the Canadian representative, that "We" are now the major supplier of natural gas to Europe.
 
Blinken said, in his joint presser with the Canadian representative, that "We" are now the major supplier of natural gas to Europe.


and that's a motive?

Sorry, but no.

That was decided when asshole Putin invaded! Trudeau has met three times with his German counterpart on one topic - gas!

That is not news. And it sure as **** is not a motive

and who the **** is 'blinken'

save your nasty nicknames for kindergarden
 
First you outright declare the United States blew up the pipeline, then attribute it to a nobody. Then close by directly stating Biden did it.

I quoted Biden's own words recorded on camera.

Can you make up your mind?

Can you make up your mind on whether or not you believe your president's own words?
There is one big fat question to the assertion and that is motive. "Qui bono"?, who benefits? The US has nothing to gain out of it, the greatest impact is on Canada which just signed a ten year deal for LNG.

Certainly Secretary of State Blinken feels the US has everything to gain from it, and he certainly said so on camera.

And for some reason everyone ignores the possibility of anti-Putin forces as bad guys.....

How would anyone other an a major govt have the ability to destroy that pipeline?
 
Back
Top Bottom